JAYAKARA C. SHETTY, PUNE V. ITO 26(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1926/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7662 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 29-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K NAYAK
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIALMEMBER S.NO. S.NO. S.NO. S.NO. I.T.A.NO. A.Y APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 11 1 1926 1926 1926 1926- -- -M MM M- -- -10 1010 10 20 2020 2001 0101 01- -- -02 0202 02 MR.JAYAKARA C. SHETTY, MR.JAYAKARA C. SHETTY, MR.JAYAKARA C. SHETTY, MR.JAYAKARA C. SHETTY, C/O. MR. D.Y.PAN C/O. MR. D.Y.PAN C/O. MR. D.Y.PAN C/O. MR. D.Y.PANDIT ADV. DIT ADV. DIT ADV. DIT ADV., ,, , 1187/10, KRUPA, 1187/10, KRUPA, 1187/10, KRUPA, 1187/10, KRUPA, SHIVAJINAGAR, SHIVAJINAGAR, SHIVAJINAGAR, SHIVAJINAGAR, PUNE 411 005. PUNE 411 005. PUNE 411 005. PUNE 411 005. PAN: AAUPS 5595 G PAN: AAUPS 5595 G PAN: AAUPS 5595 G PAN: AAUPS 5595 G THE INCOME TAX THE INCOME TAX THE INCOME TAX THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, OFFICER, OFFICER, OFFICER, WARD 26 (2)(4), WARD 26 (2)(4), WARD 26 (2)(4), WARD 26 (2)(4), MUMBAI. MUMBAI. MUMBAI. MUMBAI. 2 22 2 1927 1927 1927 1927- -- -M MM M- -- -10 1010 10 20 2020 2002 0202 02- -- -03 0303 03 MR.JAYAKARA C. SHETTY, MR.JAYAKARA C. SHETTY, MR.JAYAKARA C. SHETTY, MR.JAYAKARA C. SHETTY, MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI ITO WARD 26(2)(4), ITO WARD 26(2)(4), ITO WARD 26(2)(4), ITO WARD 26(2)(4), MUMBAI. MUMBAI. MUMBAI. MUMBAI. 3 33 3 19 1919 1928 2828 28- -- -M MM M- -- -10 1010 10 2003 2003 2003 2003- -- -04 0404 04 MR.JAYAKARA C. SHETTY, MR.JAYAKARA C. SHETTY, MR.JAYAKARA C. SHETTY, MR.JAYAKARA C. SHETTY, MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI ITO ITO ITO ITO WARD 26(2)(4), WARD 26(2)(4), WARD 26(2)(4), WARD 26(2)(4), MUMBAI. MUMBAI. MUMBAI. MUMBAI. 4 44 4 1929 1929 1929 1929- -- -M MM M- -- -10 1010 10 20 2020 2004 0404 04- -- -05 0505 05 MR.JAYAKARA C. SHETTY, MR.JAYAKARA C. SHETTY, MR.JAYAKARA C. SHETTY, MR.JAYAKARA C. SHETTY, ITO WARD 26(2)(4), ITO WARD 26(2)(4), ITO WARD 26(2)(4), ITO WARD 26(2)(4), MUMBAI. MUMBAI. MUMBAI. MUMBAI. APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAKASH PANDIT. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.K. NAYAK. DATE OF HEARING: 29-12-2011. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06-01-2012 O R D E R PER T.R.SOOD, AM: ALL THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1) AMOUNTIN G TO RS.12,829/-, RS.9039/-, RS.30,190/- AND RS.14,563/- FOR ASSESSME NT YEARS 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED LATE BY 545, 240, 24 0 AND 240 DAYS FOR AFOREMENTIONED ASSESSMENT YEARS. A CONDONATION PETITION ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN FILED. IT IS STATED IN T HE AFFIDAVIT THAT ASSESSEE IS WORKING AS ASST. (CANTEEN). IT IS FURTH ER STATED THAT AS PER A SCHEME OF THE COMPANY, AFTER REACHING AN UNDERSTA NDING WITH THE ITA NOS.1926 TO 1929 OF 2010 2 EMPLOYEES, ASSESSEE WAS PAID A MONTH REIMBURSEMENT OF SELF LEASE ARRANGEMENT IN PURSUANCE TO THE VARIOUS NEGOTIATION S HELD BY THE COMPANY I.E. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND THE EMPLOYEES UNION. THE COMPANY TREATED THE SAID PAYMENT AS PERQ UISITES FOR PROVIDING RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION. HOWEVER, AO TAXE D THE RENT GIVEN BY THE EMPLOYER AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BUT D ID NOT EXCLUDE THE VALUE OF THE PERQUISITES. ACCORDINGLY, AO RAISE D A DEMAND OF RS.5,320/- FOR A.Y 2001-02 AND REFUND FOR THE OTHER YEARS. LATER ON, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE ALSO INITIATED U/S.271(1) . DURING THE MEETING WITH THE UNION LEADERS ALL THE WORKERS INCL UDING THE ASSESSEE WERE INFORMED THAT PENALTY LEVIED WAS NOT IN ACCORD ANCE WITH THE LAW. ONLY THEREAFTER THE APPEALS WERE FILED. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THESE AVERMENTS IN THE AFFIDAV IT AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE OPIN ION THAT ASSESSEE HAD A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING THE APPEALS LATE AND, THEREFORE, THE DELAY IS CONDONED. 4. ON MERITS, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPIES OF VARIOUS ORDERS OF THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES IN WHICH IN IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES PENALTY HAS BEEN DELETED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT PENALTIES HAVE BEEN DELETED BY VARIOUS BENCHES OF MUMBAI TRIB UNAL IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: 1. I.T.A.NOS. 5986 TOP 5988-MUM-09 SMT. VERONICA J. CORREIA. VS. ITO. ITA NOS.1926 TO 1929 OF 2010 3 2. I.T.A.NOS. 1922 TO 1925-MUM-10 SHRIADRIAN JOHN AU GUSTINE VS. ITO. 3. I.T.A.NO. 1595-MUM-10 SHRI KESHAVAN P. PILLAY VS. ITO. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ITAT MUMBAI B ENCHES IN IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, THA T THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT FIT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. ACCORDINGLY WE DELETE THE PENALTIES. 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 6-1-2012. SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 6-1-2012. P/-*